Karma reasons for concrete message



    Global Moderator

    Posts: 2761
  • Darwins +166/-7

Now, regarding ED - during all the debate nonsense over birth control in the last few years, over and over I raised this question: why is it perfectly acceptable to have ED medication covered by insurance, but birth control is a different story? How can they argue that ED is not also "from god" - clearly, he doesn't want your penis to work anymore, so who are you to interfere with his will? If god himself has decided to no longer let you have erections, then by god, no more erections for you.

They never see the hypocrisy.

There is a simple explanation. Insurance is designed to pay for the expense of repairing things. If you crash your car into a tree, insurance pays the expense for repairing the car. With health insurance, the plan is designed to pay for restoring the functions of the human body or alleviating the problems caused by an accident, disease or disorder.

The vast majority of males will have erections until the day they die. The quality of erections decreases with age, certainly, but they still occur. The vast majority of females will have menses from age 15-45 and then menopause. Menses beyond age 50 is a rarity. So, erections for men are normal at any age beyond puberty, and menses are females are normal at any age between puberty and 50.

If you want to do something that alters the normal function of the human body, such as stopping menses at age 25, the expense wouldn't be reimbursed. The expense to restore the normal function of the human body, such as a lack of erections in a man aged 50, would be reimbursed.

While this seems like hypocrisy from the perspective of social policy, and it certainly is, it isn't hypocrisy from the perspective of insurance. This is why insurance is not the appropriate tool for delivering health care because not all health care is for dysfunctions.

Changed Change Reason Date